Why homeopaths should support the 10:23 campaign.

At 10:23am on January 30th 2010, more than three hundred homeopathy skeptics nationwide will be taking part in a mass homeopathic 'overdose' in protest at Boots' continued endorsement and sale of homeopathic remedies, and to raise public awareness about the fact that homeopathic remedies have nothing in them.

The campaign has been picked up by a number of media outlets - The Independent here and here, The Telegraph, The Times, The Observer, and, hilariously, the Daily Mail. (The Daily Mail got so confused with the big numbers associated with homeopathy, that they managed to inflate the NHS homeopathy budget by a factor of 1000. Basic editing has never been the Daily Mail's strong point).

There has been a backlash (of sorts) from the homeopathic community regarding the campaign, along with the standard name-calling that comes from proponents of alternative medicine any time it is criticised.

But why?

The campaign centres around Boots, the high street pharmacist. Boots is selling homeopathic products (own brand and branded) of varying dilutions, from various mother tinctures, with no restriction on amount to any old Horace, Jocasta or Gyles.

One thing that skeptics and homeopaths can surely agree on, is that this is not how homeopathy should be available.

Some skeptics would say that it shouldn't be available at all, whilst others would say that buying sugar pills isn't illegal and providing homeopaths don't make any claims as to its (lack of) effects, then caveat emptor.

Both sets of skeptics would agree that Boots should be propounding evidence-based medicine and selling pharmacy and health products which have a proven efficacy and safety record. Selling magic sugar pills based on 18th century silliness is not what a respectable Pharmacist should be indulging in.

Homeopaths, on the other hand, like to espouse the benefits of homeopathy as a 'holistic' philosophy, treating each person as a unique individual. The symptoms of having a cold are nothing to do with the cold virus that settled in your shnoz and reproduced at a rate of knots. No. It's to do with dis-ease and having an imbalanced immune system, and perhaps a poor mental state. For instance, see this on the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths' website:

Homeopathic medicines are chosen to treat the whole person, because homeopaths believe the mind and body operate as one, and you cannot treat one part of the body without affecting the whole. Medicines are chosen to fit all the characteristics of the patient, so physical disorders are considered in relation to the individual’s mental and emotional state.

Indeed. The weather. This is the origin of the phrase "feeling under the weather". No, you're right, it isn't.

So, if a homeopathic assessment is of vital importance and the patient requires a highly trained homeopath to use their knowledge of symptoms, simillima, and remedies, in order to put the patient back on the road to recovery (for the meagre sum of £100/hour), how on earth are Boots able to sell the remedies to any old misguided dabbler?

(Sharp-eyed readers will remember the same argument being posed in a previous TiD blogpost when Napier's were holding a Homeopathy for Families workshop, which provided the attendants with a free vial of Arnica 30c. Individualised, my arse).

I am genuinely surprised that homeopaths have not complained that this accessability to homeopathic medicine is dangerous and can't be given to those without the secret knowledge; otherwise, of what value is the secret knowledge?

(Results of self-diagnosis are undoubtedly as good as homeopath-diagnosed patients, as the actual remedies given will have been identical - just sugar pills - and the placebo will probably have been similar in each case).

For this reason, I'm calling on all homeopaths to stand up for what you believe and to complain to Boots about how they are making homeopathy accessible to untrained patients. Homeopaths should be calling on Boots to remove homeopathic products from their shelves, lest these terribly potent homeopathic medicines get in the wrong hands.

I look forward to seeing armies of homeopaths outside various branches of Boots on 30th Jan 2010 demanding that Big Pharmacy has no right selling homeopathic products and that the livelihood of the highly trained homeopath should be respected.

Whether or not you are a homeopath but would like to help get homeopathic products removed from Boots shelves, then join up at 1023.org.uk.

10 comments:

Surely, despite being deluded fools though, the homeopaths can see that this will lead to further protests and actions- I think many involved would like to see the state-sponsored rug pulled from under homeopathy (with no GP referrals to homeopaths and the closure of the Royal Homeopathic hospital being things I'd like to see).

Despite your arguments, despite the Boots approach going against the principals of homeopathy, I think that homeopaths would be foolish to associate themselves with the 1023 overdose event.

WHOEVER YOU ARE 'AL'...DO U EVEN KNOW HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS???& AS FAR AS THE 10:23 CAMPAIGN IS CONCERNED...EVERYONE WHO WAS PRESENT DERE WAS DERE JUS TO GET SOME MEDIA ATTENTION & TO GET DERE FREE T-SHIRTS...& IF U SAY HOMEOPATHY HAS GOT NOTHING IN IT DEN PROVE IT BY PROPER CLINICAL TRIALS & NOT BY CREATING ALL DESE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS...U PPL SAY HOMEOPATHY HAS NO EFFECT BUT V R ALREADY SEEING ITS EFFECT ON ALL THE ALLOPATHS SPECIALLY IN UK... ;)

Poorly punctuated and spelled ALL CAPS or no caps posts also rather imply idiocy.

Mindyou, to engage (eurgh) with one of the points made by the anonymous idiot, there have been plenty of good clinical trials done that show homeopathy is of no value. There is no point in wasting money on any more.

I keep noticing in regard to the protest that homeopaths are stating, "this just goes to show that homeopathy is safe", because apparently if you take the wrong remedy it won't harm you. But surely this strongly violates the principle of falsifiability? And has anyone proposed any sort of theoretical mechanism as to why the wrong remedy won't hurt you? For those going to the trouble of doing debunking articles, I've not really seen this point emphasised before. May I make a request that someone covers it? John

Keep Libel Laws out of Science

About Me

Who I am is largely irrelevant, and indeed so are most of my thoughts.
Nonetheless, it winds me up that I am supposed to swallow half-truths and untruths relating to scientific claims emanating directly from media sources and indirectly from people who haven't a clue what they're talking about.
Look, you've got me started.
(You can email me at thinkingisdangerousblog AT googlemail DOT com.)